Yeah, I thought about it some more and I don't see how seeing a visual parallel between

this:

and this:

even comes close to approaching the definition of "conjecture". And the whole knight/horse metaphor was pretty obvious from the moment we saw Batman's new armor plated suit and learned the position for riding the Bat-pod way back in '07, so for the sake of my sanity let's please just acknowledge that this parallel is there and not do the whole knee-jerk "conj3ctuRRR!!1" routine.

Because I opened my eyes and ears and saw and listened to the ending of the movie and didn't hear one single thing that hinted or suggested Batman was going to retire after that night.

What have you got to offer?

Quote:

I dont know why i have to keep saying this, but you or i are not the writers so we dont know the intention. Only Goyer and the Nolans know what TDK's ending was meant to be.

Given Nolan is the master of exposition with his movies, where he explains in 50 foot high letters what his movies are about through dialogue, the meaning is said in the movie. Nothing is mentioned about Batman being put out to pasture after TDK. All he's ever said about TDK's ending was it left Batman in a very precarious place. He also acknowledged it would be a surprise for people to learn that TDKR is set 8 years after that.

Gee I wonder why that would surprise anyone.

Quote:

Yeah and Gambol, Maroni and Chechen were taken out. If there were any more they were obviously collected by Gordon once the Dent Act came into effect, otherwise you would still see them ruling their parts in Gotham during TDKR and Batman would still be out at the start of the movie.

How did the Dent Act nail these guys? It's never ever specified how a law that denies convicted criminals parole is the solution to crime and corruption. What would mob bosses have to fear from that unless they're in jail themselves? In fact what the hell would ANY criminal not in jail have to fear from that?

Quote:

So what you're saying holds no water.

Oh it does, and you're drowning in it

Quote:

You can say that Selina Kyle or even Bane was higher class of criminal than the mob thugs that only killed for money. So Joker was still correct.

8 years later? Pull the other one, it rings. If Joker was going to inspire anyone it would have happened shortly after his reign of terror, like how the copycats sprang up after Begins.

Quote:

When did i ever say that the ENTIRE monologue was just him flapping his gums? Everything he said was true, but the one line "we're destined to do this forever" was complete horse**** coming from Jokers mouth.

It was made false because Ledger passed away, and TDKR completely omitted mentioning the Joker out of respect for his memory. When the TDK movie was written nobody knew Heath wouldn't be around to do another one. They couldn't do another recast like they did with Rachel.

Quote:

He truly believed that Two-Face would be his ace in the hole and people would see what he's done. Therefore in Jokers mind Gotham would turn into a freakzone, like Arkham Asylum/City. And him and Batman would eventually tangle once again. Or at the very least both be institutionalized. None of that ever happened. It was Joker's wet dream LOL. Batman & Gordon made sure that dream was never realized.

And as I already told you above, and you conveniently ignored, nothing was stopping Joker from having that cover up exposed.

Quote:

Well ummmmm...what other option do you have?? It's impossible that Joker and Batman fought during the 8 year gap.

Why is that now? You've just been saying it is possible that Batman was active during those 8 years, and now you're saying it's impossible they could have fought.

Pick a line of reasoning and stick to it, please.

Quote:

All im saying is, if you want your Joker and Batman round 2 then the only way it can happen is if you think up some escape scenario. Where Joker goes after Blake, the new hero.

I'm not saying that's what I want. I'm saying you're still trying to dictate what one can and cannot say about this movie.

Quote:

Was he not hunted after he said that?? Maybe you should think long and hard before you answer.

"It's about that night, this night 8 years ago. The night Dent died. The last confirmed sighting of the Batman"

Guess how much thinking that answer required.

Quote:

"You'll hunt me. Sick the dogs on me".

Exactly. Another line that was ignored by TDKR. We'll add it to the list.

Quote:

Well if my memory serves me correctly...we then see Gordon call it in, the police come, the dogs chase him, cops hunt him, chase him away. And we saw the same thing happen when he made his return 8 years later.

8 years later when he came back. We're talking the interim 8 year period between TDK and TDKR and you know that. He's saying he'll be hunted after tonight for being a killer. Not he'll be chased to his Bat-Pod after this conversation lol.

Quote:

You're not giving me any proof just like im not. You're just imagining a scenario where the criminals rat him out. Doesnt mean it goes down that way. Perhaps the criminals are scared half to death because they have the "murderous Batman" catching them. Therefore they dont say a damn word.

See it goes both ways. We're just using our imaginations.

How does that make a lick of sense? What is Batman going to do, murder them while they're locked up in prison? They've got nothing to lose telling the Cops that they were caught by Batman.

That's not using your imagination, that's making up logic that has no credibility to it.

Quote:

Yes as a matter of fact I was completely satisfied with Gordon's role.

Lucky you. I wish I could lower my standards like that.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

How did the Dent Act nail these guys? It's never ever specified how a law that denies convicted criminals parole is the solution to crime and corruption. What would mob bosses have to fear from that unless they're in jail themselves? In fact what the hell would ANY criminal not in jail have to fear from that?

If they get picked up they're screwed. So if i was a criminal a part of a larger enterprise, i would be scared yes. Because i wouldn't get parole.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Joker

8 years later? Pull the other one, it rings. If Joker was going to inspire anyone it would have happened shortly after his reign of terror, like how the copycats sprang up after Begins.

They may not have been inspired by Joker but we did end up seeing that higher class of criminal. 8 years later or not. A lot of what Joker says is true. And a lot of it is also complete b.s. Just cuz he wants there to be a higher class of criminal doesnt mean it's going to happen, especially if Batman finds a way to stop it from happening. If Joker thinks he's gonna tango with Bats again, doesnt mean it'll happen. Maybe it can happen with a new Batman like i said (Joker doesn't care who Batman is, as long as there's a Batman he's probably jumping for joy). If Joker tells Rachel his gf had no money for surgeries lol it doesnt mean it's true either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Joker

It was made false because Ledger passed away, and TDKR completely omitted mentioning the Joker out of respect for his memory. When the TDK movie was written nobody knew Heath wouldn't be around to do another one. They couldn't do another recast like they did with Rachel.

But none of us know if he would have returned to battle Batman. He could have only been in 1 or 2 short scenes locked up in Arkham. Or at the very least a name drop and that's it. None of us know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Joker

And as I already told you above, and you conveniently ignored, nothing was stopping Joker from having that cover up exposed.

True but who is going to believe a liar like Joker? A man who changes his stories every chance he gets. Someone who lies to Batman in front of everybody about where Rachel & Harvey are located.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Joker

I'm not saying that's what I want. I'm saying you're still trying to dictate what one can and cannot say about this movie.

"It's about that night, this night 8 years ago. The night Dent died. The last confirmed sighting of the Batman"

Guess how much thinking that answer required.

The last "confirmed" sighting. Yeah, CONFIRMED. I shouldnt have to tell you that Batman is a ninja and if he doesn't use his tumbler or bat-pod he can sneak around without anybody even knowing it. Especially if it's a criminal that has too much pride and doesnt want the cops all over it, yes. Batman can go around without a trace.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Joker

Exactly. Another line that was ignored by TDKR. We'll add it to the list.

No it wasn't ignored. Batman says this to Gordon when they were alone. Gordon does what Batman says and gets the police to chase him and sets the dogs on him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Joker

8 years later when he came back. We're talking the interim 8 year period between TDK and TDKR and you know that. He's saying he'll be hunted after tonight for being a killer. Not he'll be chased to his Bat-Pod after this conversation lol.

Wrong. He never said he'll be hunted after "tonight". We just assumed that. Nothing but a big giant assumption. After he said that, it happened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Joker

How does that make a lick of sense? What is Batman going to do, murder them while they're locked up in prison? They've got nothing to lose telling the Cops that they were caught by Batman.

That's not using your imagination, that's making up logic that has no credibility to it.

Yes it is. It's called the possibility that a criminal is scared by this man or man-creature who just murdered a half a dozen people including the district attorney with his bare hands. Maybe a criminal rats him out, maybe he doesnt because they think he can kill them anywhere, any place.

A way a criminal reacts is entirely up to the imagination, so you're not more right than i am.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Joker

Lucky you. I wish I could lower my standards like that.

And what kind of comment is THAT??? Hahaha wow. You talk about me. So if i (or somebody else) am satisfied with the movie or Gordons role then it's because i have lower standards than you??? Who's being arrogant now.

__________________"Guys, what would be your reaction if Alfred was Batgirl in this movie? You go watch the movie, everything cool, halfway through, Alfred becomes Batgirl."

And what kind of comment is THAT??? Hahaha wow. You talk about me. So if i (or somebody else) am satisfied with the movie or Gordons role then it's because i have lower standards than you??? Who's being arrogant now.

Was anyone dissatisfied with Gordon's role in the Nolan movies like the previous movies AT ALL? Seems like one huge double standard if that was the case....

If they get picked up they're screwed. So if i was a criminal a part of a larger enterprise, i would be scared yes. Because i wouldn't get parole.

Picked up for what? Unless the Cops have solid evidence to pick them up and convict them they don't get picked up and they certainly don't get convicted. The Dent Act is only something to worry about if you've been tried, convicted, and given a hefty sentence.

Quote:

They may not have been inspired by Joker but we did end up seeing that higher class of criminal. 8 years later or not.

How are they a higher class of criminal? Catwoman is a cat burglar, meaning someone who only cared about money. Bane is the LOS, who just want to bomb Gotham, and hate criminals themselves.

How are either of these the kind of better class of criminal Joker was referring to?

Quote:

A lot of what Joker says is true. And a lot of it is also complete b.s. Just cuz he wants there to be a higher class of criminal doesnt mean it's going to happen, especially if Batman finds a way to stop it from happening.

How can Batman prevent other criminals from being inspired by the Joker any more than he could stop the copycats from being inspired by him?

Joker already had lunatics from Arkham working for him "The kind of mind the Joker attracts". Plenty more like that out there.

Quote:

But none of us know if he would have returned to battle Batman. He could have only been in 1 or 2 short scenes locked up in Arkham. Or at the very least a name drop and that's it. None of us know.

You're right, none of us know. But considering the immense popularity Heath's Joker received, and his work not being completed because Batman and Gordon covered it up, can you see Joker sitting back quietly and just letting that happen?

Quote:

True but who is going to believe a liar like Joker? A man who changes his stories every chance he gets. Someone who lies to Batman in front of everybody about where Rachel & Harvey are located.

If they take the word of some masked terrorist who breezes into town, blows up half the city, cuts the city off, murders two football teams, keeps the city hostage with a nuclear bomb, sets free all the murderers, rapists, thieves etc from Blackgate, then why shouldn't they believe the Joker?

Yes you are. You were saying that the only way Joker could have had another round with Batman was with Blake's Batman. Not true.

Quote:

The last "confirmed" sighting. Yeah, CONFIRMED. I shouldnt have to tell you that Batman is a ninja and if he doesn't use his tumbler or bat-pod he can sneak around without anybody even knowing it.

And we're back to square one again. Let me ask you once again; if Batman was active as you are suggesting, then what was he doing? He can't have been nailing criminals because they would have confirmed he was still around.

So what was he doing?

Quote:

Especially if it's a criminal that has too much pride and doesnt want the cops all over it, yes. Batman can go around without a trace.

LOL what? A criminal with too much pride to admit the mighty Batman took him down? Yeah that's much less embarrassing than saying a garden variety Cop nailed him.

Quote:

No it wasn't ignored. Batman says this to Gordon when they were alone. Gordon does what Batman says and gets the police to chase him and sets the dogs on him.

"You'll hunt me. Condemn me. Set the dogs on me. Because that's what needs to happen"

Now since you insist on being so pedantic about this to try and cover the flaw, I'll play you at your own game here. Based on that line did you see Gordon hunt Batman?

Quote:

Wrong. He never said he'll be hunted after "tonight". We just assumed that. Nothing but a big giant assumption. After he said that, it happened.

Are you seriously trying to sell me the idea that Batman said that line in reference to being chased to his Bat-Pod and that's it? That's what the dramatic line about being hunted was about? A quick chase to the Bat-Pod?

Quote:

Yes it is. It's called the possibility that a criminal is scared by this man or man-creature who just murdered a half a dozen people including the district attorney with his bare hands. Maybe a criminal rats him out, maybe he doesnt because they think he can kill them anywhere, any place.

In Batman Begins, Batman was established as some kind of creature, and the criminals had not yet wised up to the fact that he had rules. That did not stop them from swearing that they got thrashed by a giant Bat.

So if they were not afraid to say it then, why should they be afraid to say it was Batman who thrashed them again now?

Quote:

A way a criminal reacts is entirely up to the imagination, so you're not more right than i am.

Oh yes I am. You're trying to sell the idea every criminal Batman nailed would be so scared he was going to murder them after they've been locked up just because they said it was Batman who caught them.

Sounds really stupid when you said it out loud doesn't it.

Quote:

]And what kind of comment is THAT??? Hahaha wow. You talk about me. So if i (or somebody else) am satisfied with the movie or Gordons role then it's because i have lower standards than you??? Who's being arrogant now.

Yes, you have lower standards to me. Let me clarify why; compare Gordon's role in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight to his role in Rises. In Rises he spends half the movie in a hospital bed, makes one of the dumbest decisions ever by sending all his Cops under ground looking for Bane, leaving the City vulnerable, and then spends the rest of the movie running around looking for the bomb.

I'm not saying he didn't have some good scenes, but they were few and far between. Whereas practically every scene he had in Begins and TDK was great where he really got to shine. He was an active character, heavily involved in the plot.

Now after setting a standard like that for Gordon in the first two movies, and then giving him less to do in TDKR, I wasn't satisfied with that. You were. Which means you were happy with the lower standard Gordon got, which means your standard is lower than mine.

See what I mean?

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

I wasn't a huge fan of Gordon's role in TDKR. I thought he was pretty underused, and that his character development more or less stopped. Was very disappointed by that.

I'm getting a little tired of people selectively defending fidelity to comics mythologies. Five years ago, everything that wasn't comics related was *****ed about. Now there's this movement that "No, making it not like the comics/changing the story/characters legitimizes this industry".

It's kind of sad, really. There's this weird double standard about faithfulness, seemingly based on how the film is received overall.

Quote:

You still have not justified why that is a lazy approach, but making Batman a retired miserable wretch who did nothing for 8 years is somehow a more superior and interesting version of the character.

The portrayal of Batman retiring is essentially lazy because instead of actually doing character work and evolving the character to where he is decided he will be (onscreen), the character is just already "in a different place" at the start of TDKR. The plot device of The Dent Act that we're told about (which belies a fundamental lack of understanding on the filmmaker's part in how crime and social issues work) has solved every major issue Batman fought against, and Bruce as a character is somewhat arbitrarily and rather melodramatically in a different place than he was at in TDK. A place that nothing in TDK really hints at or suggests he will be in, and which in fact, much of the previous film's emotional content suggests he will find himself in a place that is the opposite of it.

Its considered lazy because they just took where Batman was, as a character, and the minimal character development he'd had in TDK, and more or less ignored that and said "Nope, we're putting him HERE as a character".

And it's lazy because it wasn't written in an interesting way. Things didn't change gradually, they just were different, and it was just exposited to us in very obvious dialogue, and the impact didn't last very long at all, as he's almost immediately getting back into action with little exploration of his time away from being Batman or what that meant to him.

Its not a question of what happened. It's how it was written and executed.

Quote:

This is not the Gotham City as it is shown in comics, it is Nolan's grounded Gotham, I am OK with that.

Well lets see, we had a gang of ninjas who've been around for hundreds of years plotting to destroy a city with fear toxin and a microwave emitter. A psychopath dressed as a scary clown who can turn Gotham City into panicked state, a D.A. who can walk around with a face like this:

A terrorist called Bane who can lay siege to a whole City for months using a nuclear bomb. We won't even get into the idea of a millionaire dressing up as a Bat and driving around the city in a big tank fighting crime.

Grounded Gotham my foot.

Heh.

Frankly, other than the existence of metahumans and some outlandish science, Gotham has been "grounded" in the comics for years. The mythos has often been even more politically and socially and psychologically grounded in its writing than Nolan's franchise has been.

Quote:

This conjecture nonsense is borderline trolling at this point.

People have been interpreting these films for YEARS now, and it was never ever called "conjecture" until now. Gimme a break.

Plenty of posters have been called on "making things up" or "reading into" films a bit too much over the years. There's "interpreting" films, and assessing whats actually there, in the content of the writing and the film itself, and there's making stuff up. The latter seems to be happening a bit more these days.

__________________
Writer and Lyricist of GOTHAM'S KNIGHT: THE BATMAN MUSICAL

And if I'm right
The future's looking bright
A symbol in the skies at night

Plenty of posters have been called on "making things up" or "reading into" films a bit too much over the years. There's "interpreting" films, and assessing whats actually there, in the content of the writing and the film itself, and there's making stuff up. The latter seems to be happening a bit more these days.

Huh okay, I was honestly unaware this was a common accusation on these forums. In fact this very thread over the past year has been home to some of the most insightful and in-depth analysis of themes, character arcs and symbolism in the Nolan films, and as far as I can recall everyone loved it. By the increasingly narrow definitions of some, all of that stuff would now just be labeled conjecture and not treated as valuable input and food for thought. This mindset that people are just "making things up" seems needlessly dismissive to me, particularly when you have plenty posters arriving at the same conclusions separately.

Plenty of posters have been called on "making things up" or "reading into" films a bit too much over the years. There's "interpreting" films, and assessing whats actually there, in the content of the writing and the film itself, and there's making stuff up. The latter seems to be happening a bit more these days.

Like Books (Fiction), movies too have themes and symbolism, script writers and directors are known to introduce such things, so interpretation and reading beyond what is just shown on screen is a part of movie analysis, nothing wrong in that..

The portrayal of Batman retiring is essentially lazy because instead of actually doing character work and evolving the character to where he is decided he will be (onscreen), the character is just already "in a different place" at the start of TDKR. The plot device of The Dent Act that we're told about (which belies a fundamental lack of understanding on the filmmaker's part in how crime and social issues work) has solved every major issue Batman fought against, and Bruce as a character is somewhat arbitrarily and rather melodramatically in a different place than he was at in TDK. A place that nothing in TDK really hints at or suggests he will be in, and which in fact, much of the previous film's emotional content suggests he will find himself in a place that is the opposite of it.

Its considered lazy because they just took where Batman was, as a character, and the minimal character development he'd had in TDK, and more or less ignored that and said "Nope, we're putting him HERE as a character".

And it's lazy because it wasn't written in an interesting way. Things didn't change gradually, they just were different, and it was just exposited to us in very obvious dialogue, and the impact didn't last very long at all, as he's almost immediately getting back into action with little exploration of his time away from being Batman or what that meant to him.

I can somewhat agree with that, but also, I believe the fact that the Dent Act, weak plot device or not, being implemented speaks to what Nolan was trying to do.

His version of Gotham doesn't have a new flavor of the month villain. Now we can go around in circles talking about "grounded realism" and the like, but the bottom line is, a large segment of his rogues gallery most likely wouldn't appear in these films. The things that made Batman necessary in BB & TDK don't exist. The mob, after he & Gordon did their work, were further destroyed by the Joker's antics. The plausibility of the remaining criminals being "scared" by this new legislation notwithstanding, the fact remains that by the end of TDK, those who weren't outright dead were already locked up from Dent's crusade. Assuming they were convicted, and then denying them parole, would essentially do what Nolan is suggesting it did.

With the mob severely damaged, and with the "Super" villains either killed or locked up, Batman (and to a larger extent Bruce) have no purpose. His symbol is that of a theatrical element for a situation that was rampantly out of control. The events of the previous two films quelled that a bit, once again, assuming that the large quantity of high level criminals Dent rounded up in the first place actually got convicted, which we're not privy to. Throughout the history of organized crime, striking at the head of the operation renders the street thugs and lower level goons obsolete, as they don't have the mental capacity to run the show. The real mob has been limping on the past few decades because of the same dynamic. Not to say they don't exist, it's just not nearly at the same level of corruption it once was years ago. And we were shown, I believe, all the high level figures of crime in TDK. Maybe a Rupert Thorne or Cobblepot exist, but I'm just going off what he decided to show, and from my viewpoint, all the heavyweights were in TDK congregating in that room trying to figure out what to do about Batman and their money. And if this is true, then all those same guys wound up arrested or killed throughout the film.

So, to me at least, while I didn't agree with Bruce being back in action happening so fast in TDKR, I can sort of reconcile it. He's impressed with Selina's abilities, and can recognize her to be well beyond a normal thief. Aside from her skills, whatever she intends to do with his fingerprints is bold enough to warrant action. And once Gordon notifies him of something else brewing underground, it lends credence to the necessity of something as theatrical as the Batman having to return, at least to me.

__________________"I don't give a **** what you say. If I go out there and miss game winners, and people say, 'Kobe choked, or Kobe is seven for whatever in pressure situations,' Well, **** you. Because I don't play for your ******* approval. I play for my own love and enjoyment of the game. And to win. That's what I play for."-Kobe Bryant
"As of right now, I don't know what he do good, cause what may work on another fighter is not gonna work on me." - Floyd Mayweather

Huh okay, I was honestly unaware this was a common accusation on these forums. In fact this very thread over the past year has been home to some of the most insightful and in-depth analysis of themes, character arcs and symbolism in the Nolan films, and as far as I can recall everyone loved it. By the increasingly narrow definitions of some, all of that stuff would now just be labeled conjecture and not treated as valuable input and food for thought. This mindset that people are just "making things up" seems needlessly dismissive to me, particularly when you have plenty posters arriving at the same conclusions separately.

It's not dismissive when people are making up backstories and citing details that have not been actually put into the film.

Quote:

like Books (Fiction), movies too have themes and symbolism, script writers and directors are known to introduce such things, so interpretation and reading beyond what is just shown on screen is a part of movie analysis, nothing wrong in that..

Yes, but there's an art to it. Too many posters seem to think they can make up backstories and info that they wish were true, and point to that as something that's in the film, even though they have no solid evidence of that. If it's not inherently in the writing, if it doesn't tangibly exist creatively, then its not actually there, and is therefore conjecture

Quote:

I can somewhat agree with that, but also, I believe the fact that the Dent Act, weak plot device or not, being implemented speaks to what Nolan was trying to do.

It's pretty obvious what he was trying to do. He did it, it's just silly and not terribly realistic or grounded an explanation for Gotham improving.

Quote:

His version of Gotham doesn't have a new flavor of the month villain.

Except that it kind of does. It has three. Bane, Talia and Dagget.

Quote:

Now we can go around in circles talking about "grounded realism" and the like, but the bottom line is, a large segment of his rogues gallery most likely wouldn't appear in these films. The things that made Batman necessary in BB & TDK don't exist.

Right, but that's because Nolan forced the idea that Batman is no longer needed into the story.

Quote:

The mob, after he & Gordon did their work, were further destroyed by the Joker's antics. The plausibility of the remaining criminals being "scared" by this new legislation notwithstanding, the fact remains that by the end of TDK, those who weren't outright dead were already locked up from Dent's crusade. Assuming they were convicted, and then denying them parole, would essentially do what Nolan is suggesting it did.

Assuming no one else wanted to be part of the mob, or wanted to move in on their territory. Which is a pretty large assumption to make. Incredibly unrealistic turn of events.

Quote:

With the mob severely damaged, and with the "Super" villains either killed or locked up, Batman (and to a larger extent Bruce) have no purpose. His symbol is that of a theatrical element for a situation that was rampantly out of control. The events of the previous two films quelled that a bit, once again, assuming that the large quantity of high level criminals Dent rounded up in the first place actually got convicted, which we're not privy to. Throughout the history of organized crime, striking at the head of the operation renders the street thugs and lower level goons obsolete, as they don't have the mental capacity to run the show. The real mob has been limping on the past few decades because of the same dynamic. Not to say they don't exist, it's just not nearly at the same level of corruption it once was years ago.

I find that to be a bit naive, and its not quite as simple as that, but whatever.

Basically what happened was Nolan presented an extremely simplified view of crime and organized crime so that he could force the idea into the franchise that Batman could win and no longer be needed/be obsolete. And then he turned around and immediately showed Batman returning. Twice in one film. It just has relatively little impact when handled in such a manner, and frankly, is rather less compelling than more realistic alternatives.

__________________
Writer and Lyricist of GOTHAM'S KNIGHT: THE BATMAN MUSICAL

And if I'm right
The future's looking bright
A symbol in the skies at night

It's pretty obvious what he was trying to do. He did it, it's just silly and not terribly realistic or grounded an explanation for Gotham improving.

I'm not arguing that, it's a matter of opinion and taste though, as opposed to a fact. I'm kind of on the fence with the whole thing, personally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Guard

Except that it kind of does. It has three. Bane, Talia and Dagget.

I'm definitely not classifying Dagget as a supervillain, but those other two are coming almost a decade since the last incident. And in this version, both coming from a previous threat he's already dealt with. Basically, what I'm saying is, after them, who's next? Who keeps coming? Who necessitates something as drastic as a Batman for him to exist during that 8 years? Riddler, Penguin, Mad Hatter, cool. But 8 years is a long time with no Man-bat, Clayface, Mr. Freeze, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Guard

Assuming no one else wanted to be part of the mob, or wanted to move in on their territory. Which is a pretty large assumption to make. Incredibly unrealistic turn of events.

It's not just about that. Coming into the mob, reorganizing it, and running it with no prior leadership or reputation is almost impossible. The real life NY mobs are still running on the foundation Lucky Luciano built in the 1930s. The structure is really no different, but with the increased police presence not just on the organized mob but the crack cocaine epidemic of the 80s, NY is a helluva lot safer now than it's ever been. And nobody in a bat costume stepped foot in the place. Imagine if one did...

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Guard

Basically what happened was Nolan presented an extremely simplified view of crime and organized crime so that he could force the idea into the franchise that Batman could win and no longer be needed/be obsolete. And then he turned around and immediately showed Batman returning. Twice in one film. It just has relatively little impact when handled in such a manner, and frankly, is rather less compelling than more realistic alternatives.

Your entitled to your opinion, I even agree with some of it, but just the merits of him being in exile for 8 years, given the previous films & their events, I can understand it.

__________________"I don't give a **** what you say. If I go out there and miss game winners, and people say, 'Kobe choked, or Kobe is seven for whatever in pressure situations,' Well, **** you. Because I don't play for your ******* approval. I play for my own love and enjoyment of the game. And to win. That's what I play for."-Kobe Bryant
"As of right now, I don't know what he do good, cause what may work on another fighter is not gonna work on me." - Floyd Mayweather

It's not just about that. Coming into the mob, reorganizing it, and running it with no prior leadership or reputation is almost impossible. The real life NY mobs are still running on the foundation Lucky Luciano built in the 1930s. The structure is really no different, but with the increased police presence not just on the organized mob but the crack cocaine epidemic of the 80s, NY is a helluva lot safer now than it's ever been. And nobody in a bat costume stepped foot in the place. Imagine if one did...

It's not about the mob running things the same way it always did, or it being possible to always continue under one leadership/structure. The mob/organized crime evolves and changes like any other industry or organization. Its about other elements coming in to pick up the slack. In the real world, that's what happens. The organized criminal element doesn't just vanish as it did in TDKR. Nolan presented this world where various types of organized crime formed some kind of supermob, and when they were taken out, no other organized/crime elements came in to fill the vaccum. That's just not realistic.

__________________
Writer and Lyricist of GOTHAM'S KNIGHT: THE BATMAN MUSICAL

And if I'm right
The future's looking bright
A symbol in the skies at night

Basically a simple dent act, allowed the police to make the city a near utopia, if it was that easy, why was batman so needed?

__________________
"All superheroes are essentially criminals who capture other supercriminals in vigilante-style justice and engage in wanton destruction of public property during superpowered fights".

Basically what happened was Nolan presented an extremely simplified view of crime and organized crime so that he could force the idea into the franchise that Batman could win and no longer be needed/be obsolete. And then he turned around and immediately showed Batman returning. Twice in one film. It just has relatively little impact when handled in such a manner, and frankly, is rather less compelling than more realistic alternatives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Guard

It's not about the mob running things the same way it always did, or it being possible to always continue under one leadership/structure. The mob/organized crime evolves and changes like any other industry or organization. Its about other elements coming in to pick up the slack. In the real world, that's what happens. The organized criminal element doesn't just vanish as it did in TDKR. Nolan presented this world where various types of organized crime formed some kind of supermob, and when they were taken out, no other organized/crime elements came in to fill the vaccum. That's just not realistic.

Again, Nolan's movies do not attempt to paint a realistic picture, they are just showing a grounded version of Batman, which basically means that Nolan applies the real world properties to his story after they are adapted to suit his vision.

It's not about the mob running things the same way it always did, or it being possible to always continue under one leadership/structure. The mob/organized crime evolves and changes like any other industry or organization. Its about other elements coming in to pick up the slack. In the real world, that's what happens. The organized criminal element doesn't just vanish as it did in TDKR. Nolan presented this world where various types of organized crime formed some kind of supermob, and when they were taken out, no other organized/crime elements came in to fill the vaccum. That's just not realistic.

Exactly. Gotham was one of the dirtiest most corrupt cities ever in Begins and TDK. The turn of events TDKR presented just because the Dent Act was passed was laughably ridiculous and unbelievable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eros

Basically a simple dent act, allowed the police to make the city a near utopia, if it was that easy, why was batman so needed?

Exactly. Gotham can't have been in that bad a state if all they needed to sort it out was a law that stops parole for convicted criminals lol.

Every time I type that it sounds even more stupid!

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

Mayor Garcia said all crime is impossible to stop, but the Dent Act was obviously a huge help when it came to organized crime. I dont see how that's stupid, but maybe thats just me.

Batman (in Nolans world) was never about the little petty crimes and thieves. Selina only made him interested because it was personal and had to do with his mothers pearls. Nolans Batman was more about organized crime and the big leaguers. So i had no problem with the Dent Act what so ever.

__________________"Guys, what would be your reaction if Alfred was Batgirl in this movie? You go watch the movie, everything cool, halfway through, Alfred becomes Batgirl."

Some of you guys rant that it's not a realistic Gotham but it's just more grounded compared to other CBM's or other Batman tellings. Which is totally true. Yet you harp about how the Dent Act wasn't realistic at all. It still is a comic book movie, and isnt completely realistic just like "The Bat" isnt realistic. So The Dent Act may be a stretch and it wouldnt go down that way in real life. But it's still a damn movie and it works as a bill that can reduce the organized crime within the city. What would have been completely stupid is to say that said bill can wipe out ALL crime. And they made a point to say that it would be impossible to do so.

I personally saw the logic in the Dent Act and it worked just fine for me. I can see why NOLANS BATMAN wasn't needed and im good with that. Maybe the batman of the comics would still be lingering around trying to take out every little bad boy on the street selling marijuana, but it just aint the same thing in this case.

You saw no logic in it. I did. Why does it have to go on for 10 pages.

__________________"Guys, what would be your reaction if Alfred was Batgirl in this movie? You go watch the movie, everything cool, halfway through, Alfred becomes Batgirl."

Exactly. Gotham can't have been in that bad a state if all they needed to sort it out was a law that stops parole for convicted criminals lol.

Every time I type that it sounds even more stupid!

Cause and Effect.

Apart from the need to root out mafia and organized crime, The events that happened in TDK due to actions of Joker, Two face and Batman created the need for an act like the Dent act. You are overlooking the fact why it was created in first place, the City was plunged into a war like zone by the Joker and mafia.

The Dent Act is some what similar to real world PATRIOT Act, would you call it stupid too ?

Again, Nolan's movies do not attempt to paint a realistic picture, they are just showing a grounded version of Batman, which basically means that Nolan applies the real world properties to his story after they are adapted to suit his vision.

Except that...in the real world, crime, with its real world properties, doesn't work the way Nolan thinks it does.

Quote:

The movies are grounded not realistic.

Whatever the heck that means.

Quote:

Some of you guys rant that it's not a realistic Gotham but it's just more grounded compared to other CBM's or other Batman tellings. Which is totally true. Yet you harp about how the Dent Act wasn't realistic at all.

It's not just that it wasn't realistic or that there's no logic behind it in the movie's world...it's that it was a cheap plot device of an explanation for multiple issues.

Quote:

Apart from the need to root out mafia and organized crime, The events that happened in TDK due to actions of Joker, Two face and Batman created the need for an act like the Dent act. You are overlooking the fact why it was created in first place, the City was plunged into a war like zone by the Joker and mafia.

How did Batman create the need for the Dent act?

How did The Joker's actions create the need for the Dent act?

The events of Harvey Dent putting the criminals away created the need. But since what the authorities wanted was to keep organized crime off the streets to begin with, what actually created the need for the Dent act was the existence of organized crime in the first place.

__________________
Writer and Lyricist of GOTHAM'S KNIGHT: THE BATMAN MUSICAL

And if I'm right
The future's looking bright
A symbol in the skies at night

Apart from the need to root out mafia and organized crime, The events that happened in TDK due to actions of Joker, Two face and Batman created the need for an act like the Dent act. You are overlooking the fact why it was created in first place, the City was plunged into a war like zone by the Joker and mafia.

What The Guard said was spot on here:

Quote:

It's not about the mob running things the same way it always did, or it being possible to always continue under one leadership/structure. The mob/organized crime evolves and changes like any other industry or organization. Its about other elements coming in to pick up the slack. In the real world, that's what happens. The organized criminal element doesn't just vanish as it did in TDKR. Nolan presented this world where various types of organized crime formed some kind of supermob, and when they were taken out, no other organized/crime elements came in to fill the vaccum. That's just not realistic.

No city, even Nolan's one which was presented as like the worst most corrupt city ever, would be cleaned up so easily to the point where they were going to retire Gordon because crime was so low, was believable. Not to mention it was lazy.

Quote:

The Dent Act is some what similar to real world PATRIOT Act, would you call it stupid too ?

How is the Dent Act remotely like a real world Patriot Act?

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

No city, even Nolan's one which was presented as like the worst most corrupt city ever, would be cleaned up so easily to the point where they were going to retire Gordon because crime was so low, was believable. Not to mention it was lazy.

Yep, very hard to disagree. Nolan's story tells us crime is so low, soon they'll be hunting down overdue library books. Batman rides off into the night at the conclusion of TDK. The Dent Act is passed and apparently that's all it takes to pretty much change the entire city's mentality. I don't buy it. There will always be some form of crime on the street, and I think it would've been better if Batman was active sporadically in this time because of that, also highlighting Gordon's "because he can take it" comment. When Batman says they'll hunt him because it needs to happen, and then we find out it didn't, it feels like a comedown.

. TDK began with the Mob's back against a wall. Joker's comment confirmed this.

. Joker ripped through Gambol, Chechen. Two-Face possibly killed Maroni. I'm of the opinion that Two-Face did kill him indirectly.

. Dent Act passes; has at least 7 years to work prior to TDKR.

This convinced me of the feasbility of the utopia we see at the beginning of TDKR.

__________________
"I defeated your uncle Victarion and his Iron Fleet off Fair Isle, the first time your father crowned himself. I held Storm's End against the power of the Reach for a year, and took Dragonstone from the Targaryens. I smashed Mance Rayder at the Wall, though he had twenty times my numbers. Tell me, turncloak, what battles has the Bastard of Bolton ever won that I should fear him?" - Stannis Baratheon

. TDK began with the Mob's back against a wall. Joker's comment confirmed this.

. Joker ripped through Gambol, Chechen. Two-Face possibly killed Maroni. I'm of the opinion that Two-Face did kill him indirectly.

. Dent Act passes; has at least 7 years to work prior to TDKR.

This convinced me of the feasbility of the utopia we see at the beginning of TDKR.

* Joker said they were afraid to go at night because of Batman and that's why they meet in the day. That's why they turned to Joker because Batman was their problem. Joker offered to get him.
* There was like 20 mob guys in that mob meeting room with Joker. You just mentioned three.
* No parole for guys already in jail doesn't keep crooks off the streets. Dent Act is dumb and makes no sense.